On 10/19/18 9:25 AM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 04:19:21PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 05:10:30PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 03:59:03PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 08:53:15AM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
own head) for either of the two modeling approaches
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-October/msg00214.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2018-October/msg00891.html
It has a bad name, but essentially you should consider "ostype" to
refer to the Hypervisor <-> Guest hardware ABI.
Oh, if that's the case, then indeed separate ostype makes sense. Maybe
it worth expanding ostype description somewhere in documentation?
Also, such definition of os type, make "linux" os type for Xen PV even weirder...
Yeah, I wish we could ditch it.
BTW, please include a patch for docs/news.xml in V5. Thanks!
Regards,
Jim
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
